PAI-SUKANG v. STEPHEN T. LAN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-0365-16T1

PAI-SU KANG,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STEPHEN T. LAN,

     Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________

              Argued January 17, 2018 – Decided February 12, 2018

              Before Judges Hoffman and Gilson.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset
              County, Docket No. FM-18-0558-08.

              Pai-Su Kang, appellant, argued the cause pro
              se.

              Jeffrey C. Green argued the cause for
              respondent (Green & Green, attorneys; Jeffrey
              C. Green, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        This case returns to us after remand proceedings directed by

our previous opinion, Pai-Su Kang v. Lan, Nos. A-4376-12, A-4131-

13 (App. Div. May 18, 2015), certif. denied, 
223 N.J. 557 (2015).
In an August 16, 2016 order, the Family Part judge amended certain

portions of the April 2, 2013 Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD).

Among other things, the judge valued plaintiff's business at

$88,875   and    determined    defendant's   equitable      interest    to    be

$33,000; the judge also addressed a calculation error regarding

the parties' joint bank account, and required plaintiff to pay

defendant $25,688.42.      Plaintiff filed an appeal from the August

16, 2016 order; defendant did not cross-appeal.             We affirm.

                                     I

     The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history

of this case; therefore, a detailed recitation of those facts and

events    is    unnecessary.     Instead,    we   provide    the   following

abbreviated account.

     The parties married in December 1997. They have two children,

a daughter born in 2000, and a son born in 2002.                The parties

separated in September 2007, and plaintiff filed her divorce

complaint in December 2007.        The Family Part conducted a forty-

day trial, beginning in August 2010, and entered the FJOD, with

an accompanying 122-page opinion, on April 2, 2013.                Plaintiff

appealed from the FJOD, and separately appealed from orders entered




                                     2                                 A-0365-16T1
on an enforcement motion.1    We addressed both appeals in a May 18,

2015 opinion; we affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in

part.     Pai-Su Kang, slip op. at 32.

     On remand, the judge accepted additional submissions from the

parties, and on August 16, 2016, issued a written opinion and

order addressing the remand issues and explaining the reasons for

his findings.

                                    II

     As she did in her original appeal, plaintiff takes issue with

certain    findings   concerning   equitable   distribution.   Namely,

plaintiff's arguments focus on the Family Part's valuation of her

business.    She also disputes the Family Part's joint bank account

calculations, arguing it erred by "adding [$9173] . . . when it

[should have] . . . subtracted."

     Based on our review of the record and applicable law, as well

as our consideration of the briefs and oral arguments, we are not

persuaded by any of plaintiff's arguments. We affirm substantially

for the reasons expressed by the Family Part judge in his thorough

and well-reasoned opinion.     We add the following comments.




1
   Plaintiff also appealed from a December 5, 2014 Family Part
order denying a post-judgment enforcement motion and requiring her
to pay counsel fees and costs. See Pai-Su Kang v. Lan, No. A-
2266-14 (App. Div. July 21, 2016).

                                    3                           A-0365-16T1
     Family courts have "special jurisdiction and expertise in

family matters," and therefore, "appellate courts should accord

deference" to a family court's fact finding.      Cesare v. Cesare,


154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998).     "We grant substantial deference to a

trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which will

only be disturbed if they are 'manifestly unsupported by or

inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible

evidence.'"     Crespo v. Crespo, 
395 N.J. Super. 190, 193-94 (App.

Div. 2007) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of

Am., 
65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).

     Our Supreme Court has recognized that "in the valuation of a

business, '[t]here is no single formula that will apply to each

enterprise.'"     Steneken v. Steneken, 
183 N.J. 290, 296 (2005)

(quoting Bowen v. Bowen, 
96 N.J. 36, 44 (1984)).       "Flexibility

must be the byword in determining which approach is best suited

in a particular instance because '[t]here is no inflexible test

for determining fair value, as valuation is an art rather than a

science . . . .'"    Id. at 297 (quoting Lawson Mardon Wheaton, Inc.

v. Smith, 
160 N.J. 383, 397 (1999)).   Business valuation "requires

consideration of proof of value by any techniques or methods which

are generally acceptable in the financial community and otherwise

admissible in court."    Ibid.



                                  4                          A-0365-16T1
       In his August 16, 2016 opinion, the judge explained his trial

findings, stating, "The [parties'] experts could not have been

more    inapposite   as     to     determining   fair    market    value       of

[plaintiff's] 100 [percent] ownership in her sole proprietorship

business."     Specifically, defendant's expert approximated the

business's   worth   to   be      $237,000,   whereas   plaintiff's      expert

"decided the value of [plaintiff's] business to be zero, and

therefore,   nothing   to    be    divided    between   the   parties    as    to

equitable distribution."

       The judge took issue with both experts' opinions, and noted

he "need not adopt the opinion of either expert in its entirety."

As such, he used "parts of each expert's testimony and report

and . . . formulated [his] own determination based upon certain

indisputable facts, common sense, and realities."                 See, e.g.,

Townsend v. Pierre, 
221 N.J. 36, 52 (2015) ("The admission or

exclusion of expert testimony is committed to the sound discretion

of the trial court.").      Ultimately, he valued plaintiff's business

at $88,875, and finding "[t]here was little evidence . . . as to

[defendant] adding to or assisting in the growth of the business

in a direct way," determined defendant was entitled to $33,000

equitable interest in the asset.

       We discern no basis to disturb the judge's determination.               He

appropriately valued plaintiff's business and, based on his "feel

                                       5                                A-0365-16T1
for the case," distributed the marital property accordingly.               See

Div of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 
189 N.J. 261, 293 (2007)

(Wallace, J., dissenting).

     Moreover,   plaintiff's    argument     that   the   judge    erred    by

"continu[ing]"   to   adopt    defendant's    "self-created       fraudulent

chart . . . to determine [her] bank account" lacks merit.             In our

remand, we held:

          Defendant submitted a summary of the parties'
          non-retirement bank accounts as of December
          3, 2007.   As plaintiff transferred $9173 to
          defendant after that date, defendant exempted
          $18,346 of plaintiff's funds from equitable
          distribution. This accurately reflected the
          transfer because the summary overstated
          plaintiff's accounts by $9173, and understated
          defendant's accounts by $9173.

          [Pai-Su Kang, slip op. at 13-14.]

Here, the judge accurately addressed our concern and amended the

balance plaintiff owed defendant to $25,688.42.

     In light of the record and applicable legal principles, we

find no error. The judge clearly identified the issues we remanded

and explained the reasons for the amendments set forth in the

August 16, 2016 order.

     Any arguments raised but not specifically addressed lack

sufficient merit to warrant comment in a written opinion.                   R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

     Affirmed.

                                    6                                A-0365-16T1